The diagram shows a cloaked object in the left hand column. The little box in the middle of each coloured section appears identical in the left hand column (cloaked) as it does in the right hand column (free space, ie. no object). Therefore there is no detectable difference between a cloaked object, and no object at all.

The middle column, an uncloaked object, his a different little box than the columns either side, indicating that it is detectable.

OK, the 2nd row isn't a particularly good example, but the other rows show the effect nicely.

@The main man "Funny really"

I guess you don't know what you're talking about, and didn't understand the article. The hack was targeted at a company called NetNames. The fact the The Register's website was affected was not their fault.

An analogy that gives you the idea of the extent of The Register's culpability in this scenario would be to imagine that The Register were a customer of Tesco. So one day The Register are inside Tesco doing their shopping and then Mr T drives through the Tesco car park in his tank crushing a random selection of cars in the car park. If you find The Register at fault for parking in the wrong space, then you find them at fault for this website defacement too.

@Fred Flintstone "I have a simple answer.."

"I would propose that anyone buying data from another source must be obliged to tell you where that information was obtained."

This is provided for in the existing Data Protection legislation. A user of data is obliged to inform the individual who's data they are using of the source of that data. Most companies that I've contacted are not aware of this, and their staff will act as if I'm wrong, when I'm not. It is immensely frustrating to be flat out told you're wrong when you're right, by a numpty at the carphonewhorehouse who knows sh1t-all about what they're talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/4mcdbr3 is a PDF from the ico.gov.uk website which covers this.

Countdown

"There are other forms of pedestrian signals" ... "countdown, currently being trialed at eight sites in London"

They've installed a countdown timer at the crossing near Finsbury Square (just up from Moorgate) but mis-programmed it. It remains Red-man lit when traffic can't progress due to a red light for them too.

Some kind of trolling, presumably?

RE: AC @ 11:17 GMT

While is is clear that Andy S hasn't read the article and thoroughly deserves your Thumbs Down icon, I'm confused by your use of "TL; DR" in reference to his comment. His comment wasn't particularly L, and you evidently did R all of it because you commented on it including text from the last sentence.

First!

Remote Charging in the literal sense is obviously impossible using current technology so this feature will be equivalent to a 'reserve tank' on a motorbike.

Presumably the default setting for the level you're allowed to discharge the battery is put in place for a good reason (to avoid damaging the battery perhaps?).

An obvious comment would be "Why make us SMS for the reserve tank, why not just make it a big red button on the dashboard". I can think of a reason: To put you off using it too much.

Make it just slightly more complicated than pressing 1 button and people will use it less. That way, they won't be constantly using the reserve tank, and consequently won't damage their batteries unless strictly necessary.

@Tom 7

How bad is this?

Sorry if I've not read the article throughly enough, but are you saying that if I can successfully apply to one of the major trusted CAs for this kind of certificate, I can get a green address bar fir my phishing site?

This is bad, isn't it? How bad is it? Apart from a superficial description of the method, there doesn't seem to be much comment in the article about the real-world implications of this?

Surely teh CAs will be watching for this kind of thing now and avoiding issuing certificates like this?

I keep the same phone from brand to brand? I can't figure out how this 'improved' version of the sentence can possibly mean anything. I keep the same K800i phone from Sony to Nokia?

That's gibberish!

The original sentence, "Most people keep the same brand from phone to phone" means that I stick with the same Brand (Sony) from one phone to the next". Simple. And logically a possible scenario.

I'm not commenting on whether or not Robert was correct, or in any way sensible. I'll leave that up to you guys. But your ill thought out angry response (which in a wonderfully ironic twist you ended with the phrase "I'm always amazed at the ignorance of forum ranters.") made me want to shout at you.